MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126407653 · doi:10.1109/hicss.2009.314

Multi-Agent Modeling to Understand the Impact of Stakeholders' Decisions in a Residential Land Development Project in Southern Alberta

2009· article· en· W2126407653 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Kieser, Danielle J. Marceau

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlannerProcess (computing)Environmental resource managementComputer scienceLand useConceptual modelBaseline (sea)Environmental planningBusinessProcess managementEngineeringGeographyEnvironmental scienceCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this project is to build a multi-agent system to simulate the decision making process of stakeholders in a residential land development project and the influence of such decisions on land-use resources. The environment over which decisions are made is Strathmore, Alberta, where competition for land-use resources is increasing as a result of its proximity to the City of Calgary. The stakeholders simulated as agents are the citizens, the town planner and the developer. Interviews were conducted with representatives of each group to gather information about their goals, decision making process and influence. Simulations were performed over 30 years with a one year interval to mimic different land development scenarios. The model generates a series of land-use maps showing the changes in the environment based on the goals and decisions of agents. Conceptual and operational validation is currently done with experts. When fully tested, this model will represent a valuable tool to better understand the complex interactions among several stakeholders involved in the land redesignation process and forecast the cumulative impact of their decisions on the environment.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207